Benedict of Aniane the Emperor's Monk

Home , Benedict of Aniane, Romanus (exarch), William of Gellone

Cistercian Studies Series: Number two hundred-twenty

Benedict of Aniane The Emperor’s Monk

Ardo’s Life

Cistercian Studies Series: Number two hundred twenty

Ardo’s Life

Translated by Allen Cabaniss Foreword by Annette Grabowsky and Clemens Radl

CISTERCIAN PUBLICATIONS Kalamazoo, Michigan Translation and Introduction © copyrighted by Allen Cabaniss, 1979 Translation revisions and supplementary notation, © Cistercian Publications, 2008 Foreword © Cistercian Publications, 2008

The work of Cistercian Publications is made possible in part by support from Western Michigan University to the Institute of Cistercian Studies.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Ardo. [Vita Benedicti. English. Selections] benedict of Aniane : the emperor’s monk Ardo’s life / translated by allen Cabaniss ; foreword by Annette Grabowsky and Clemens Radl. p. cm. — (Cistercian studies series ; no. 220) includes index. isbn 978-0-87907-320-6 1. Benedict, of Aniane, Saint, ca. 750–821. 2. Christian saints—France—Biography. i. Cabaniss, Allen, 1911– ii. Title. iii. Series. bX4700.B35A721325 2008 271'.102—dc22 2008003606

[B]

Printed in the United States of America The Board and Editors of Cistercian Publications dedicate this book with affection and respect to the memory of Patricia Sommerfeldt

Table of Contents

Table of Abbreviations ...... viii A Review of Recent Scholarship By Annette Grabowsky and Clemens Radl ...... 1 Translator’s Introduction By Allen Cabaniss ...... 27 Translator’s Acknowledgments ...... 53 Editor’s Note ...... 57

The Life of Benedict of Aniane ...... 59 Short Index of Names ...... 111 Table of abbreviations

EppKa Epistolae Karolini aevi. Berlin 1892.

MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historia series

Manitius, Geschichte Max Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Literaur des Mittelalters. Munich: Beck, 1911.

Mühlbacher, Regesta J. Böhmer, E. Mühlbacher, J. Lechner, Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter den Karolingern 751-918. Innsbruck: Verlag der Wagner’schen Universitäts- Buchhandlung, 1908

PL J.-P. Migne, Patrologia cursus completus series Latina

PLAC MGH Poetae Latini aevi Carolini

SS MGH Scriptores

SS rer. Merow mGH Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum The Second benedict a review of recent Scholarship

Benedictus II enedictus secundus—‘the second Benedict’—is how Benedict of Aniane was reverently referred to soon after his death.1 This nickname establishes him as the legitimate successor to his famous bnamesake Benedict of Nursia, whose name to this day is equated with the Regula Benedicti, and who is popularly celebrated as the founder of benedictine monasticism. For quite some time, however, historians have realized however, that it was not Benedict of Nursia, but Benedict of Aniane who was in fact the ‘organizer of true benedictine monasticism’.2

Benedict of Nursia We owe all our knowledge of Benedict of Nursia to a single source. Gregory the Great, pope from 590 to 604, devoted to Benedict the second book of his Dialogues, a work which in four books describes the ‘Lives and Miracles of the Saints in Italy’.3 Any historian interested in Benedict’s biography will find reading this book inevitably disappoint- ing, as the actual facts Gregory delivers on Benedict’s life are exceedingly

1. Capitula qualiter observationes sacrae in nonnullis monasteriis habentur quas bonae memoriae Benedictus secundus in coenobiis suis alumnis habere instituit, ed. by Hieronymus Frank, Corpus Consuetudinum monasticarum 1 (Siegburg: Schmitt, 1963) 353. 2. Josef Semmler, Heinrich Bacht, ‘Benedikt von Aniane’, in Lexikon des Mittel- alters 1 (Munich: Artemis, 1980) 1864–1867, here 1864. 3. Gregory the Great, Dialogues, ed. by Adalbert de Vogüé (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1979) 2:126–248.

1 2 Benedict of Aniane sparse. This, as far as we can reconstruct it, is the outline of Benedict’s biography. Born in Nursia (Umbria) and from a respected family, he was sent by his parents to school in Rome. To avoid succumbing to the dissolute and licentious lifestyle there, he abandoned his studies and left the city to live as a hermit east of Rome, near Tivoli.4 His fame as a man of God spread rapidly, and he was soon appointed abbot of a monastery. His strict concept of the regular life, however, antagonized the monks, who proceeded to conspire against him. Benedict survived an attempted poisoning and left to establish a group of twelve monasteries of his own in nearby Subiaco. Encountering hostility there as well, he moved to Casinum (Montecassino), where he destroyed an existing pagan shrine and replaced it with his most famous monastery. There he remained until his death. The few external historical events (famines, contacts with Goths) that allow an exact dating enable us to narrow Benedict’s lifetime down to the years from around 480/490 to 550/560. Available information therefore is anything but profuse. It was not Gregory’s goal, however, to compose a meticulous curricu- lum vitae of the saint. In the words of Karl S. Frank, it is rather an ‘interpreted biography’.5 The four fictitious dialogues between Gregory and his deacon Peter, including the lives of Benedict and forty-nine other Italian saints, were intended to serve as examples for Peter. The miracle stories were intended, not for historical instruction, but for religious edification—a common practice in theM iddle Ages. Gregory devotes the second book of these dialogues primarily to the miracles performed by Benedict as a way of portraying Benedict’s path toward sainthood. The hagiographical nature of the narrative is not the only thing to have aroused doubts among historians; even Gregory’s authorship has come into question. The British historian Francis Clark argues that Gregory cannot be considered to be the author of the Dialogues for a variety of reasons which he explicates in two studies.6 Clark assumes

4. Gregory the Great, Dialogues II, Prol. 1; Vogüé, 126. 5. Karl S. Frank, ‘Die Benediktusregel und ihre Auslegung bis Benedikt von Aniane’, Rottenburger Jahrbuch für Kirchengeschichte 9 (1990) 11–25, here 12. 6. Francis Clark, The Pseudo-Gregorian Dialogues. 2 volumes (Leiden: Brill, 1987), and recently idem, The ‘Gregorian’ Dialogues and the Origins of Benedictine Monasticism (Leiden: Brill, 2003). The Second Benedict 3 that the Dialogues were written by a ‘dialogist’ towards the end of the seventh century, roughly one hundred years after Gregory’s death. Clark’s views have not gained general acceptance, however, and Gregory, by common consent, continues to be credited with the authorship of the Dialogues, though some agree that he may not have published them himself.7 Another line of criticism has been aimed, not at the circumstances of their genesis, but at the very content of the Dialogue on Benedict. Johannes Fried recently posed the question: who was Benedict of Nursia? Actually the question should read: did Benedict of Nursia really exist, or was he in reality perhaps nothing more than a ‘myth, a pious legend, a phantom’?8 Provoking this query is the fact that the sole source for Benedict’s life was not written down until half a century after his death. Gregory did not know him personally, though he mentions numerous authorities who told him all about Benedict.9 Yet no further information about these men can be found anywhere. Similarly, we are unable to substantiate the story of Benedict by comparison with another source. Another point of contention for Fried is the fact that Benedict— supposedly quite famous in his own lifetime—appears to have remained virtually unknown in Italy until the eighth century.10 In fact, the first traces of his veneration are found in Gaul, not in Italy. According to an ancient tradition, a delegation from the abbey Fleury-sur-Loire was sent to Montecassino in the late seventh century to obtain relics of Benedict and his sister Scholastica for Gaul.11 In Italy, by contrast, there are no

7. Paul Meyvaert, ‘The Enigma of Gregory the Great’s Dialogues: A response to Francis Clark’, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 39 (1988) 335–381; Pius En- gelbert, ‘Neue Forschungen zu den “Dialogen” Gregors des Großen. Antworten auf Clarks These’, Erbe und Auftrag 65 (1989) 376–393; Johannes Fried, ‘Gedächt- nis in der Kritik: Chlodwigs Taufe und Benedikts Leben’, in idem, Der Schleier der Erinnerung. Grundzüge einer historischen Memorik (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2004) 333–357 and 434–441. 8. Fried, Gedächtnis in der Kritik, 356. 9. Gregory the Great, Dialogues II, Prol. 1 (Vogüé, 126); see also Kassius Hallinger, ‘Papst Gregor der Grosse und der hl. Benedikt’, in Basilius Steidle, ed., Commentationes in regulam S. Benedicti (Rome: Herder, 1957) 231–320, here 254 f. 10. Fried, Gedächtnis in der Kritik, 353 f. 11. Fried, Gedächtnis in der Kritik, 354. 4 Benedict of Aniane signs of veneration: his tomb was neglected, and no one bore his name.12 Not until the early eighth century did Rome begin to show signs of a certain reverence for Benedict of Nursia, and around 718, under Abbot Petronax, Pope Gregory II set about rebuilding Benedict’s monastery at Montecassino, which had been destroyed by the Lombards at the end of the sixth century.13 In general, this meager framework of concrete data—amplified by miracle stories and containing very few individual elements, mainly provided by place names—is so vague and unspecific that, theoretically, it could be applied to virtually any founder of any sixth century abbey.14 The same also applies to the clichéd description of Benedict of Aniane’s life.15

The Age of the Combined Rule Veneration for Benedict of Nursia did not begin immediately after his death, nor, as we said, did it begin in Italy. Nor did the rule commonly ascribed to Benedict gain immediate widespread acceptance. Gregory’s Dialogue contains a brief chapter in which reference is made to a rule reputedly written by Benedict.16 This rule, however, is characterized merely as a particularly suitable rule for monks; details about its structure or content are not disclosed. Gregory was neither a propagator of the Regula Benedicti nor of benedictine monasticism, as this chapter might lead readers to believe. Gregory himself did not observe the benedictine Rule, nor did he implement it in his monastery, Saint Andrew in Rome.17 Indeed, up until the tenth century there is no evidence of any community in Rome living by this rule. Contrary to later developments in the Middle Ages, as well as in modern practice, in Gregory’s time there was no concept of one single

12. The translation of his remains is currently considered improbable; for a summary see Fried, Gedächtnis in der Kritik, 439 f., note 118. 13. Paulus Diaconus, Historia Langobardorum VI 40; ed. Georg Waitz, MGH Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. VI–IX (Hannover: Hahn, 1878) 178f. 14. See Fried, Gedächtnis in der Kritik, 351. 15. See below: ‘The Beginning of Benedict of Aniane’s Monastic Career’. 16. Gregory the Great, Dialogues II, 36; Vogüé, 242. 17. Hallinger (n. 9 above), ‘Papst Gregor der Grosse und der hl. Benedikt’. The Second Benedict 5 rule characteristic of a specific order and distinguishing it from others. There were no monastic orders, one did not live as a ‘Benedictine’ or as a ‘Pachomian’; one chose a specific lifestyle: anchorite, cenobite, or itin- erant monk.18 When composing a rule for his community, the founder of a monastery not uncommonly drew from existing rules, and combined this material with new elements meeting the specific requirements of his community. Benedict of Nursia was no exception. His rule, for example, corresponds strongly to and is probably dependent on the Regula Magistri, whose author to this day remains anonymous.19 Benedict’s Rule, therefore, is not an original work: it was eclectic, as were all others at the time. To be absolutely accurate, one really should not refer to Benedict of Nursia as ‘the father of Western monasticism’!20 According to the final chapter of the Regula Benedict, not even Benedict himself claimed exclusivity for his Rule. He regarded it as a ‘little rule for beginners’. Those who were seeking perfection were encouraged to abide by the Bible and the writings of the Fathers, such as Cassian and Basil.21 In accordance with the custom of the times, therefore, the Regula Benedicti was combined with other rules and not implemented exclusively—except perhaps at Montecassino. Thus we refer to this period before the Regula Benedicti was declared the sole valid rule for all monastic communities as the ‘Age of the Combined Rule’. The first signs of the diffusion ofB enedict’s Rule may be observed in southern Gaul. In a letter dating from around 620/630, an abbot named Venerandus announces to Bishop Constantius of Albi that he has implemented regulam sancti Benedicti abbatis Romensis in Altaripa.22 Noteworthy is the reference to Benedict as a roman abbot—apparently Venerandus

18. Compare, for example, the famous chapter in the Rule on the different types of monks: Regula Benedicti 1; ed. Rudolf Hanslik (Wien: Hoelder-Pichler- Tempsky, 21977) 18–20, and Hallinger, ‘Papst Gregor der Grosse und der hl. Benedikt’, 259. 19. See the summary provided by David Knowles, ‘The Regula Magistri and the Rule of St Benedict’, in Knowles, Great Historical Enterprises. Problems in Monastic History (London: Nelson, 1963) 135–195. 20. Cf. Bernd Jaspert, ‘Benedikt von Nursia–der Vater des Abendlandes? Kri- tische Bemerkungen zur Typologie eines Heiligen’, Erbe und Auftrag 49 (1973) 90–103 and 190–207. 21. Regula Benedicti 73; Hanslik, 179–181. 22. Ludwig Traube, Textgeschichte der Regula S. Benedicti (Munich: Franz, 21910) 87 f.; Friedrich Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum im Frankenreich. Kultur und Gesellschaft in 6 Benedict of Aniane had no knowledge of Gregory the Great’s Vita Benedicti. The oldest testimony for the observance of the Regula Benedicti in combination with other rules occurs in the rule which Bishop Donatus of Besançon, a student of the renowned monk Columbanus, compiled for his monastery of women between 630 and 635. The greatest portion of this combined rule consists of forty-three chapters from the Rule of Benedict.23 Up until well into the eighth century, the Rule of Benedict was dispersed by means of combined rules of this kind, mainly in combination with the Irish Rule of Columbanus. The dispersion of this rule- combination occurred within the context of the spread of iro-frankish monasticism from Luxeuil Abbey, its center in the Vosgues Mountains.24 From the seventh century on, exclusive observance of the Rule of Benedict became gradually more common, thanks to the initiative of anglo-saxon monasticism. By then, the Rule was generally perceived as the work of a roman abbot, a claim which seems to have recom- mended it to the Anglo-Saxons, who were close associates of Rome.25 Willibrord and especially Boniface endorsed the Regula Benedicti and established its exclusive observance in the monasteries they founded on the continent, as at Fulda Abbey in 744.26 Prior to that, in 742, Boniface had decreed at his first synod, theConcilium Germanicum, that all monks and nuns were to live exclusively according to the Regula Benedicti. We know however, that not all communities considered this binding.27

Gallien, den Rheinlanden und Bayern am Beispiel der monastischen Entwicklung (4. bis 8. Jahrhundert) (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 21988) 267f. 23. Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum, 285; Michaela Zelzer, ‘Die Regula Donati, der ält- este Textzeuge der Regula Benedicti’, Regulae Benedicti Studia 16 (1989) 23–36. 24. Examples may be found in: Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum, 272–289. 25. Regarding the alleged roman origin of the Rule see: Pius Engelbert, ‘Re- geltext und Romverehrung. Zur Frage der Regula Benedicti im Frühmittelalter’, Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte 81 (1986) 39–60. 26. Bonifatius, ep. 86; ed. Michael Tangl, Die Briefe des Heiligen Bonifatius und Lullus, MGH Epistolae selectae 1 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1916) 193, line 20. 27. Concilium Germanicum c. 7; ed. Albert Werminghoff, MGH Concilia aevi Karolini 1 (Hannover: Hahn, 1906) 4. See also Wilfried Hartmann, Die Synoden der Karolingerzeit im Frankenreich und in Italien (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1989) 50–53; Josef Semmler, ‘Benedictus II: una regula—una consuetudo’, in Willem Lourdaux, The Second Benedict 7 The anglo-saxon reformers received substantial support from the Carolingians, who had maintained close relations with the popes in Rome since the reign of Pepin III, Charlemagne’s father. Since the popes were actively endorsing benedictine monasticism by the first decades of the eighth century—by rebuilding Montecassino for in- stance—the Carolingians acknowledged Rome’s preferred Rule and strove to implement it politically as well. As Rome was deemed the repository of authentic tradition, it was the natural place to consult in looking for a copy of the Rule of Benedict. In 787 Charlemagne went on a mission to Benedict’s own domain in Montecassino and, shortly thereafter, he ordered a transcript to be made of the copy of the Rule there. This copy, alleged to have been written by Benedict himself, had supposedly been taken to Rome by monks fleeing the abbey after its destruction by the Lombards,28 and then restored to Montecassino by Pope Zachary in the 740s. Charlemagne declared this transcript of the Montecassino copy the model text and the obligatory monastic Rule for his entire empire.29 Reminders to observe the Benedictine Rule were issued regularly at several synods: in 802 at Aachen and at the reform synods in 813, but it was apparently difficult to convince the monastic communities to relinquish their accustomed constitutions.30 The eventual dominance of the Rule of Benedict did not necessarily mean that all earlier monastic traditions were entirely abandoned. This is manifested by the great variety of rules present in the great monastic libraries of the ninth century. On their shelves the rules of

Daniël Verhelst, edd., Benedictine Culture 750–1050 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1983) 1–49, here 3f. 28. Epistula ad regem Karolum de monasterio sancti Benedicti directa et a Paulo dictata, ed. Kassius Hallinger, Maria Wegener, Corpus consuetudinum monasticarum 1 (Sieg- burg: Schmitt, 1963) 157–175, here 159 f. See also Rudolf Schieffer, ‘“Redeamus ad fontem”. Rom als Hort authentischer Überlieferung im frühen Mittelalter’, Roma—Caput et Fons. Zwei Vorträge über das päpstliche Rom zwischen Altertum und Mittelalter (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1989) 45–70, here 62. 29. Charlemagne’s copy is not preserved in the original. A transcription is extant at Saint Gall Abbey. Studies have shown, however, that Charlemagne’s model text did not gain general acceptance. Other independent versions of the Regula Benedicti were more popular: Klaus Zelzer, ‘Zur Stellung des Textus receptus und des interpolierten Textes in der Textgeschichte der Regula S. Benedicti’, Revue bénédictine 88 (1978) 205–246. 30. Semmler, ‘Benedictus II’, 4f.; Oexle, Forschungen 112f., 112–133. 8 Benedict of Aniane Basil, Columbanus and Benedict rested side-by-side.31 This was quite in accordance with the spirit of the last chapter of Benedict’s rule, which encourages the reading of the writings of the Fathers. Benedict of Aniane’s Concordia regularum was in essence compiled with similar intent, not to propagate the exclusivity of the Regula Benedicti, but to manifest its harmonious accord with other rules just as valuable and worthy of study.32

The Beginning of Benedict of Aniane’s Monastic Career As the Regula Benedicti embarked on its triumphal march through the Frankish Empire, Benedict of Aniane, at the beginning of his monastic career on the empire’s periphery, appears to have been committed to the combined-rule tradition. Still in royal service, he could practice asceticism only covertly after his conversion. Entering a monastery was not his first choice, and he was uncertain about which form of religious life he should choose (Life 1.2). After his brother’s tragic accident—the incident which provoked his change of life—he secretly entered the monastery of Saint Seine, near Dijon. This may have occurred at the advice of a monk named Widmar, whom he consulted for guidance (2.2). At this point, he was still far removed from the idea of una regula. He also does not appear to have been ideally suited to communal life. His form of asceticism was so severe that it proved to be incompatible with community life, and he essentially lived as an anchorite among cenobites. His individuality, not entirely devoid of egoism, prompted the abbot to intervene and remind Benedict to abide by the Regula Benedicti. This was nothing more than a rule ‘for beginners and weak persons’ in Benedict’s mind, who much preferred the rules of Basil and Pachomius (2.5). Though living in a monastic community observing the Rule of Benedict, he himself apparently lived by the code of some

31. Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum, 290, with examples. 32. Pierre Bonnerue, ‘Introduction’, in Ardon, Vie de Benoît d’Aniane, translated by Fernand Baumes (Bégrolles en Mauges: Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 2001) 17–43, here 40f.; Semmler, ‘Benedictus II’, 27; voicing views similar to those of Bonnerue: Adalbert de Vogüé, ‘La Concordia regularum de Benoît d’Aniane: son vrai but et sa structure’, in Giovanni Spinelli, ed., Il monachesimo italiano dall’età longobarda all’età ottoniana (secc. VIIIX) (Cesena: Badia di Santa Maria del Monte, 2006) 39–45. The Second Benedict 9 combined rule, albeit an unwritten one. Suddenly, Benedict began to demonstrate enthusiasm for the Regula Benedicti (2.5). This change of heart transformed him in the eyes of his brethren from a ridiculed misfit to an integrated member of the community, a process concluded by his promotion to the office of cellerar (2.6).D uring this time, he fully as- similated the Regula Benedicti and was even elected abbot. He fled from this office, however, realizing that his uncompromising lifestyle was incompatible with that of the brothers. He withdrew to his home and, together with Widmar and others sympathetic to his ideas, he established on his father’s land near the small river Aniane a monastic settlement of his own, a cella exigua (3.1). We are unable to judge how much of this narrative is true to fact, especially the description of Benedict’s excessive asceticism. The limited information at Ardo’s disposal (Preface: b, 42), leads us strongly to suspect that, in many passages, he simply used his imagination or reverted to literary modes or topoi. The parallels to Benedict of Nursia’s Vita are pronounced. The basic framework of the stations of his life applies to Benedict of Aniane’s equally well. The early circumstances are similar: both are of noble birth and sent away for their education (Rome / Aachen). Both take their first steps in religious life as anchorites, until they are taken on by monks (Romanus / Widmar). Both experience a period of failure before establishing their own monasteries. Both are elected abbot and both reject the office for the same reason: that their lifestyles were divergent from those of their brethren (moribus non convenire).33 The correspondences go beyond mere content; in part even the phrasing of Ardo’s Vita follows Gregory’s Vita Benedicti. From the first chapter, it should have been instantly clear to every medieval reader of the Life that Benedict of Aniane stood firmly in the tradition of his namesake, that he was a Benedictus secundus. Vir venerabilis nomine et merito Benedictus is but a slight variation of the opening sentence of Gregory the Great’s second book of the Dialogues that comments on Benedict’s speaking name.34

33. Regarding these parallels see: Josef Narberhaus, Benedikt von Aniane. Werk und Persönlichkeit (Münster: Aschendorff, 1930) 11f. 34. Gregory’s second book of the Dialogues begins: Fuit uir uitae uenerabilis, gratia Benedictus et nomine (Regula Benedicti Prol. 1; Hanslik, 126); regarding Benedict’s name ‘Witiza’, see Cabaniss’ Introduction, p. 36 below. 10 Benedict of Aniane

Benedict of Aniane and the Resolutions of Aachen Benedict of Aniane is commonly portrayed as a figure inseparable from the monastic reforms of Aachen promulgated in the second decade of the ninth century. There appears to be no doubt about his participation: Ardo reports that after Louis the Pious invested Benedict with general authority over all monasteries of the empire, Benedict met with many abbots and monks, and together they compiled a set of prescriptions which he then presented to the emperor for ratification (36.1). Bene- dict’s relationship to Louis the Pious is mentioned repeatedly in the Life. They were in contact during Louis’ reign in Aquitaine, where the king commissioned the abbot to reform the religious houses in this province (29.1).35 This close relationship is confirmed by a donation charter for Aniane Abbey dating from around 808, which historians have long overlooked.36 Louis’ interest in Benedict’s work did not sub- side when he succeeded his father Charlemagne in 814. First he sum- moned the abbot to the alsatian abbey of Marmoutier, then to Inden, closer to Aachen, to establish a monastery there (35.1-2).37 According to Ardo, Louis also invested Benedict with general authority over all the monasteries of the empire (36.1). This position did not entail the authority of a modern ‘Abbot General’; instead, as historians stress with reference to other prominent coeval abbots and bishops, Benedict’s role was more that of a co-coordinator than of a ‘super abbot’.38

35. See also: Semmler, ‘Benedictus II’, 7–9; idem, ‘Benediktinische Reform und kaiserliches Privileg. Zur Frage des institutionellen Zusammenschlusses der Klö- ster um Benedikt von Aniane’, in Gerd Melville, ed., Institutionen und Geschichte. Theoretische Aspekte und mittelalterliche Befunde (Cologne: Böhlau, 1992) 259–293, here 271–274. 36. Mark Mersiowsky was the first to draw attention to this charter; see Mark Mersiowsky, ‘Zur Edition der Diplome Ludwigs des Frommen’, in Ellen Widder et al., edd., Manipulus Florum (Münster: Waxmann, 2000) 307–340, here 323–330. 37. The Moissac Chronicle also records this incident: Chronicon Moissiacense ad 814, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH Scriptores 1 (Hannover: Hahn, 1826) 311, lines 27–31. 38. Semmler, ‘Benediktinische Reform und kaiserliches Privileg’, 276 f. and 289 note 226; Dieter Geuenich, ‘Kritische Anmerkungen zur sogenannten “anianischen Reform”’, in Dieter R. Bauer et al., edd., Mönchtum—Kirche—Herrschaft 750–1000 (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1998) 99–112, here 102/103; Mayke De Jong, ‘Carolingian Monasticism: The Power of Prayer’, in Rosamond McKitterick, The Second Benedict 11 In order to extend the reforms implemented in his kingdom of Aquitaine to all religious houses of the empire in the course of his reno- vatio regni Francorum, Louis convened two synods for the purpose of directing his program towards appropriate legislation. The main goal of these two synods, convened in August 816 and July 817, was to divide the religious communities into two distinctive groups: all monastic communities were to receive the same constitution (the una consuetudo), while establishments of canons and canonesses, as well as all other non- monastic religious houses, were to receive a separate rule of their own. While the sources documenting the canonical reform are quite plentiful, remarkably, the written sources from these synods pertaining to the monastic reform are not only exceedingly scarce, but rather complicated as well.39 The only extant legislative sources for the monastic reform are: 1. For the 816 synod there are the texts historians refer to as the acta praeliminaria: a) the ‘Statuta Murbacensia’ from the alsatian abbey of Murbach, a transcription of the topics of the proceedings, recorded before the close of the hearings and just possibly extant in the original; b) a capitular text that also appears to be a private recording of the council resolutions (‘Praeliminarium of Rouen’).40 In addition, a capitulary of Louis the Pious is preserved in three manuscripts dating from the ninth and twelfth centuries.41

ed., The New Cambridge Medieval History 2: C. 700–c. 900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 681–694, here 632. 39. A survey of the extant manuscripts may be found in: Hubert Mordek, Bibliotheca capitularium regum Francorum manuscripta. Überlieferung und Traditionszu- sammenhang der fränkischen Herrschererlasse, MGH Hilfsmittel 15 (Munich: MGH, 1995) 1045–1058. 40. Actuum praeliminarium Synodi primae Aquisgranensis commentationes sive Statua Murbacensia, ed. by Semmler, Corpus Consuetudinum monasticarum 1:441–450; Synodi primae Aquisgranensis acta praeliminaria, ed. Semmler, Corpus Consuetudi- num monasticarum 1:435–436; Semmler, ‘Zur Überlieferung der monastischen Gesetzgebung Ludwigs des Frommen’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelal- ters 16 (1960) 309–388, here 321–332. 41. Synodi primae Aquisgranensis decreta authentica; Semmler, Corpus Consuetudi- num monasticarum 1, 457–468; referred to as ‘Capitulare monasticum I’ in Mordek, Bibliotheca capitularium, 999–1005; Semmler, ‘Zur Überlieferung der monastischen Gesetzgebung’, 332–337; regarding the synod see: Josef Semmler, ‘Die Beschlüsse 12 Benedict of Aniane 2. The result of the proceedings of July 817, preserved only in one of Louis’ capitularies and comprising forty-three chapters, is found in a twelfth-century manuscript (two early modern printed versions reproduce the text of two manuscripts, now lost).42 3. Another document bearing the same date as the 817 capitulary was published by Josef Semmler under the title Regula Sancti Benedicti Abbatis Anianenis sive collectio capitularis, and dated by him to 818/819.43 This capitulary contains no new material, but rather combines the decrees of 816 and 817. In view of the great number of manuscripts reproducing this document, as well as their dates (ninth to fifteenth centuries), it appears that this document was considered throughout the Middle Ages to have been the central source for the Aachen decrees. The puzzling date of the document does raise some questions. Indu- bitably, however, a great assembly of abbots and monks convened in Aachen on 10 July 817. But why publish two different versions of the decrees—a shorter one and a longer one that contains the shorter one plus the 816 capitulary—as the result of one and the same synod? The Frankish Royal Annals—amazingly—do not record the monastic reforms until the year 818; the assemblies of 816 and 817 are not mentioned there: After Christmas 818, a synod took place in Aachen; there many matters pertaining to the church and monasticism were discussed.44 Chapter Five of the Capitulare ecclesiasticum enacted at this occasion includes some monastic legislation. Among other prescriptions, it upholds the monastic lifestyle as previously recorded in a scaedula.45

des Aachener Konzils im Jahre 816’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 74 (1963), 15–82. 42. Synodi secundae Aquisgranensis decreta authentica, ed. Semmler, Corpus Con- suetudinum monasticarum 1:473–481; referred to as ‘Capitulare monasticum II’ in Mordek, Bibliotheca capitularium, 1005–1009. See also Semmler, ‘Zur Überlieferung der monastischen Gesetzgebung’, 337–341. 43. Corpus Consuetudinum monasticarum 1:515–536; see Semmler, ‘Zur Überlieferung der monastischen Gesetzgebung’, 341–369. 44. Annales regni Francorum ad 819; ed.Friedrich Kurze, MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi 6 (Hannover: Hahn, 1895) 150. 45. Capitulare ecclesiasticum 818/819 c. 5; ed. Alfred Boretius, MGH Capitularia regum Francorum 1 (Hannover: Hahn, 1883) 276, lines 24–28. The Second Benedict 13 The scaedula in question might have been the Collectio capitularis.46 If this more extensive, combined capitulary does indeed date from 818/819, it seems somewhat incredible that the legislators did not bother to adjust the date of the synod (all documents carry the date 10 July 817). 4. Another product of the Aachen reforms is the Notita de servitio monasteriorum, a list of all taxes and fees the abbeys allegedly owed to the emperor. Its actual relevance to the reform is a matter of dispute.47 Other historiographical sources mention the Aachen decrees, but those of 817 and not those of 816. Both the Chronicon Laurissense breve and the ‘Chronicle of Moissac’ state that the assembly of Aachen pre- scribed the mandatory observance of the Regula Benedicti for all monks, and also instigated separate prescriptions for canons.48 Aside from im- posing the observance of the Benedictine Rule (una regula), the synods were also instrumental in establishing consuetudines, contemporary regu- lations that supplemented the Rule, interpreted it, or sometimes even contradicted it.49 The volumes mentioned here in fact contain these consuetudines. The great accomplishment of the decrees of Aachen was to establish for the first time in history a purely benedictine observance.T his brought to an end the age of the combined rule. Henceforth, a Bene- dictine was someone who, in the spirit of una regula–una consuetudo, observed these decrees in his monastic community.50 Louis did not leave the implementation and observance of the una consuetudo up to the

46. For the dating of the Collectio capitularis see: Semmler, ‘Zur Überlieferung der monastischen Gesetzgebung’, 361–365. 47. Notitia de servitio monasteriorum, ed. Peter Becker, Corpus Consuetudinum monasticarum 1:493–499. The newest study is the still-to-be-published dissertation by Walter Kettemann, Subsidia Anianensia. Überlieferungs- und textgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Witiza-Benedikts, seines Klosters Aniane und zur sogenannten ‘anianischen Reform’. Mit kommentierten Editionen der Vita Bene- dicti Anianensis, Notitia de servitio monasteriorum, des Chronicon Moissiacense/ Anianense sowie zweier Lokaltraditionen aus Aniane (Gerhard-Mercator-Univer- sität Duisburg, 1999); see also: Geuenich, ‘Kritische Anmerkungen’, 106–108. 48. Chronicon Laurissense breve ad 816, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH Scrip- tores 1 (Hannover: Hahn, 1826) 122, lines 27–33; Chronicon Moissiacense ad 815; ed. Pertz, 311, lines 40–45. 49. Semmler, ‘Benedictus II’, 30–47. 50. Semmler, ‘Die Beschlüsse des Aachener Konzils’, 75f. 14 Benedict of Aniane monasteries, however, but commissioned missi to monitor the effectua- tion of the decrees.51 It appears to have been difficult for the abbeys to relinquish their non-benedictine traditions, however. The sources show that numerous abbeys, even prominent communities, were unwilling to do so and chose instead to follow the canonical code.52 The Aachen reforms were thus only partially successful: the Regula Benedicti had triumphed at last, a uniform customary (consuetudo), however, remained beyond reach. Benedict of Aniane’s exact role in the Aachen reforms cannot be explicitly gleaned from the official documents recording the results of the synods. It is frustrating that we are not even able to identify all participants by name.53 And, what is more, we also learn nothing of Benedict of Aniane’s participation. Furthermore, there is no mention anywhere in these documents of Benedict’s authorship. Little more is to be garnered from the historiographical sources, for that matter: the Chronicon Moissiacense records Benedict’s summons to Inden, the so- called Astronomus relates only Louis’ reform mandate; nor is anything to be learned about Benedict’s share in the Aachen reforms from Er- moldus Nigellus.54 The only one who offers any detail is Ardo, who devotes chapters Thirty-six to Thirty-eight of his Life to Benedict’s ef- forts at attaining una regula and, especially, una consuetudo: ‘He ordered many things in conformity with the Rule. But there are a great many matters demanded in daily practice about which the Rule is silent. . . . For the sake of unity and concord or perhaps for the sake of honorable appearance or even out of consideration for human frailty, Benedict commanded some matters that are not inculcated in the Rule. . . . Where a page of the Rule explains less lucidly or remains altogether silent on a matter, he established and supplied with reason and aptness some matters on which, with divine help, I will touch briefly. . . . ’ (37). Aside from the Life, therefore, there is little support from the extant

51. Semmler, ‘Benediktinische Reform und kaiserliches Privileg’, 276f. 52. For examples see: Semmler, ‘Benedictus II’, 11–18. 53. For the 816 synod see: Hartmann, Synoden der Karolingerzeit, 157. 54. Chronicon Moissiacense ad 814; ed. Pertz, 311, lines 27–31. Astronomus, Das Leben Kaiser Ludwigs, ed. Ernst Tremp, MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi 64 (Hannover: Hahn, 1995) 376, lines 10–16. Ermold le Noir, Poème sur Louis le Pieux et Épitres au roi Pépin, ed. Edmond Paral (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1964) 92–94, verses 1184–1212. The Second Benedict 15 source material for the notion that the 816 and 817 decrees were con- ceived ‘under the decisive influence of the septimanian reformer’.55 German scholars have therefore begun to question the legitimacy of the term ‘anianian reform’—a term that has never been widespread in anglo-saxon research, where the more appropriate term ‘monastic reform’ is used. Aniane was of relevance to the reform politics only as long as Benedict resided there. After the emperor called him away, the abbey declined into insignificance. The reform was enacted where Benedict was, so the term ‘anianian’ is inapplicable.56 Reference is also frequently made to the fact that Benedict was not the only reformer of his time. Other distinguished abbots—such as Hilduin of Saint-Denis or Benedict’s friend Helisacher—and several bishops also had their share in the reforms. If they had been equally ‘fortunate’ in receiving a vita, we might be compelled to regard the whole monastic reform from an entirely different perspective. What is more, other reforms, some even before 814, had also been undertaken— for example those of Leidrad of Lyon.57 Beyond dispute, however, is Benedict’s role towards an exclusive observance of the Regula Benedicti. He was the chief promoter and propagator of this concept.

The Life of Benedict In the preceding considerations frequent reference has been made to the Life of Benedict of Aniane, presented here in english translation. It is the primary source for his career as abbot of Aniane as well as for his political activities in the cause of monastic reform. In the broader perspective of monastic life in the early Middle Ages, and the formation and growth of monasteries, often under adverse circumstances, Ardo’s Life conveys numerous other points worthy of discussion and further deliberation. It is therefore more than appropriate to take a close look at the source itself. How was the Life of Benedict dispersed? What do we know of the evolution of the text and its reliability? And finally, what can be said of its author, Ardo of Aniane? In the following discussion, the points already explored by Allen Cabaniss in his Introduction, will not be reiterated. Instead we will

55. Semmler, ‘Benediktinische Reform und kaiserliches Privileg’, 273f. 56. Geuenich, ‘Kritische Anmerkungen’, 102f. 57. Geuenich, ‘Kritische Anmerkungen’, 103f.; Oexle, Forschungen, 146–157. 16 Benedict of Aniane review recent developments or look at new focuses of interest or considerations currently under discussion. The synoptical nature of this introduction and limitations in space prohibit a detailed analysis. The dispersion of the Life of Benedict is quite meager.58 Not one remotely coeval version of the text has survived. The only medieval manuscript containing the Life dates from the first half of the twelfth century. That manuscript, the cartulary of Aniane, is now preserved in the departmental archives of Montpellier.59 When compiling their cartulary, the monks placed Benedict’s Life at the beginning of the codex; numerous charters relating to the abbey’s history follow. The version of the biography found in the cartulary of Aniane corresponds in essence to the one the translation in this edition is based upon. Upon closer examination, however, the situation is not as simple as it might appear, for the more recent versions of the text show peculiari- ties that warrant discussion. These versions do not appear in any medieval manuscript, but exist only in modern transcriptions and prints. The first printed version of the Life was published by Hugo Ménard in 1638.60 He published only the preface and chapters 1 to 18.2 and 30 to 44; the portion containing chapters 18.3 to 29 is missing from this edition. It is possible, of course, that Ménard printed an abridged version of the Life, but it is puzzling that he makes no mention of the fact.61 The question arises therefore, whether Ménard might not have had at his disposal some other medieval manuscript containing a different version of the Vita not dependant on the cartulary. Furthermore, a letter

58. A list of the manuscripts may be found in Corpus Consuetudinum monasticarum 1:308f. The following is for the most part a summary of Bonnerue, ‘Introduction’, 22–28. 59. Archives départementales de l’Hérault, Montpellier, 1 H 1. The cartulary’s text has been printed, but without commentary or the paleographical, codicolo- gical and diplomatic analysis of a critical edition, by Léon Cassan and Edmond Meynial, edd., Cartulaires des Abbayes d’Aniane et de Gellone publiés d’après les ma- nuscrits originaux: Cartulaire d’Aniane (Montpellier: Jean Martel Ainé, 1900). Cf. Mersiowsky, ‘Zur Edition’, 324f. 60. Hugo Ménard, Concordia regularum auctore S. Benedicto Anianae abbate (Paris 1638) 1–45. 61. It was not entirely unusual practice for the publishers of early printed editions to abridge the contents of medieval manuscripts without proper documenta- tion. Pierre Bonnerue considers it quite unlikely, however, that Ménard did so in the case of the Benedict Vita; cf. Bonnerue, ‘Introduction’, 23. The Second Benedict 17 dating from 1650 is preserved62 that comments on the discrepancies between Ménard’s printed edition and the longer version found in the cartulary of Aniane. Other letters dating from the seventeenth century reproduce either the shorter version printed by Ménard or precisely those passages missing in his edition.63 Later prints and editions render the capitulary text or reproduce Ménard’s, divulging no information on further manuscripts. The evidence from the sources described above allows for two fea- sible explanations. Either Ménard actually did use a medieval manuscript, now lost, that contained an abridged version of the Life, and, if so, that the short version originates from Ardo cannot be ruled out entirely. It is also conceivable, of course, that Ménard himself, or the newer source he used, independently abridged the cartulary text. In this case, we would have to continue to assume that the long version was essentially written by Ardo himself. To resolve this question, comprehensive research is necessary that cannot be accomplished within the scope of this introduction. Firstly, comparative studies of the individual transcriptions, letters, and printed versions are necessary to identify differences and similarities, as well as possible interdependencies. This would necessarily include an analysis of the text itself: the complete Vita would need to be scrutinized for coherence; discontinuities would need to be identified and analyzed; the style of the text indubitably ascribed to Ardo would have to be minutely compared to the dubious portions; and finally, the possible motives for text abridgement or revision would need to be explored. In his introduction to a french translation of the Vita, Pierre Bonnerue made a first attempt at tackling this task.T he summary of the text and manuscript tradition, given above, is based on his study. Bonnerue pre- sents noteworthy arguments to support his hypothesis that the shorter version printed by Ménard in fact represents the older, original version. In his judgment, the crucial revisions to Ardo’s text were not made until two hundred years after the fact, sometime during the eleventh century.64

62. A letter from Michel Moisnel to Dom Claude Chanteloup dated 8 May 1650 (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 11761, fol. 89–105). 63. For details see: Bonnerue, ‘Introduction’, 24–26. 64. Bonnerue, ‘Introduction’, 28–36. 18 Benedict of Aniane In order to be able better to understand the context behind this theory, we need briefly to review the history ofA niane Abbey, and to focus especially on its relationship to the neighboring abbey of Gellone, also mentioned in the Life. Chapter Thirty relates in some detail the career of the influential and well-known CountW illiam of Toulouse, who might even have been related in some way to the ruling Carolin- gian dynasty. In the early ninth century, after retreating from military and political life, William established the monastery Gellone (today Saint-Guilhem-du-Désert) near Aniane, and spent the final years of his life there.65 Gellone, initially closely associated with Aniane, soon pros- pered and flourished, becoming a large and prestigious abbey in its own right. Aniane, on the other hand, declined soon after Benedict’s death. Beyond losing its prominence in Aquitaine, it even lost its independence intermittently and was beset by grave financial distress.A fter the mid- eleventh century, a tedious and fierce dispute developed between the former sister-houses regarding Gellone’s independence.66 The incident that presumably precipitated the altercation occurred in 1066, when the monks of Gellone elected their own abbot without previously

65. For an account on William of Gellone, see the Introduction by Allen Cabaniss, who also summarizes Arthur J. Zuckerman’s theories in A Jewish Princedom in Feudal France 768–900 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972)—which scholars have widely rejected. See Allen Cabaniss’ list of reviews, as well the review by Wilfried Hartmann, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 29 (1973) 284f. The most recent studies on William are Philippe Depreux, Prosopographie de l’entourage de Louis le Pieux (781–840) (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1997) 224 f.; Jean- Loup Lemaître and Daniel Le Blévec, Le livre du chapitre de Saint-Guilhem-le-Désert, ed. Jean Favier (Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 2004) 24–39; and Joachim Wollasch, ‘Eine adlige Familie des frühen Mittelalters: Ihr Selbstverständnis und ihre Wirklichkeit’, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 39 (1957) 150–188. 66. The most recent findings on the dispute betweenA niane and Gellone are presented by Pierre Chastang, ‘Mémoire des moines et mémoire des chanoines: Réforme, production textuelle et référence au passé carolingien en Bas-Languedoc (XIe–XIIe siècles)’, in Jean-Marie Sansterre, ed., L’autorité du passé dans les sociétés médiévales (Brussels-Rome: Institut Historique Belge de Rome, 2004) 177–202, see especially 179–188. Still valuable because of its thoroughness, but in many respects outdated is Wilhelm Pückert, Aniane und Gellone: Diplomatisch-kritische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Reformen des Benedictinerordens im IX. und X. Jahr- hundert (Leipzig: Hinrich’sche Buchhandlung, 1899), and Pierre Tisset, L’Abbaye de Gellone au diocèse de Lodève des origines au XIIIe siècle (Paris: Recueil Sirey, 1933). On Pückert, see Mersiowsky, ‘Zur Edition’, 324. The Second Benedict 19 consulting Aniane. The abbot of Aniane appealed to Pope Alexander II with a letter of complaint. While the further development of the dispute remains irrelevant to this discussion, Aniane was defeated in the end. In subsequent decades, the popes repeatedly adjudicated in favor of Gellone’s independence. One of the measures both sides took in the course of their quarrel was the creation of cartularies in which they collected, falsified, or completely forged charters to document their respective former estates and to underscore claims against the opponent or to ward off the other’s claims.67 The Life of Benedict, planted in the most prominent position of Aniane’s cartulary, falls therefore under the suspicion of having been altered in the course of the conflict. Bonnerue claims to recognize a reaction to Chapter Thirty of the Life especially in Chapters Nineteen to Twenty-nine (in his opinion later additions). It would exceed the scope of this introduction to discuss Bonnerue’s theory in full detail.68 We shall, however, at least cite the most important theses of his argu- ment.69 According to Bonnerue, a careful reading reveals that the chapters in question serve mainly to exalt Aniane with respect to the neighboring abbey. Chapters Nineteen to Twenty-two were designed to reproduce Chapter Thirty in order to demonstrate that Benedict and William possessed the exact same virtues (more strongly pronounced, naturally, in the case of Benedict). The account in Chapter Twenty of Benedict’s participation in the council at Arles in 813 disrupts the chronology of the Vita, as the events between 792 and 813 are not

67. On the Aniane cartulary, see above, note 59. The Gellone cartulary is also available in a printed (but not critical) edition: Paul Alaus, Léon Cassan, Edmond Meynial, edd., Cartulaires des Abbayes d’Aniane et de Gellone publiés d’après les manu- scrits originaux: Cartulaire de Gellone (Montpellier: Jean Martel Ainé, 1898). 68. A thorough study, to include an analysis of the Benedict Vita, has been announced for some time by W. Kettemann. See Walter Kettemann, ‘Subsidia Ani- anensia. Überlieferungs- und textgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Witiza-Benedikts, seines Klosters Aniane und zur sogenannten “anianischen Re- form”. Mit kommentierten Editionen der Vita Benedicti Anianensis, Notitia de servitio monasteriorum, des Chronicon Moissiacense/Anianense sowie zweier Lokaltraditionen aus Aniane. Thèse de doctorat, soutenue à l‘université de Duis- bourg, le 19 janvier 2000, dir. Dieter Geuenich’, Revue Mabillon N. S. 11 (2000) 321–323. This study will, one hopes, elucidate and resolve the problems and open questions regarding this text and its history. 69. See Bonnerue, ‘Introduction’, 33–35. 20 Benedict of Aniane described until after Chapter Thirty. The description of new buildings in Chapter Twenty-two is much too sketchy, compared with the description of earlier building projects in Chapter Seventeen, as are accounts of the reform of monasteries in Chapter Twenty-four, when compared with the detailed and more precise accounts in Chapters Thirty-one, Thirty-three, and Thirty-four. Bonnerue wonders why miracle stories are recounted in Chapters Twenty-five toT wenty-eight, when these had already been covered in Chapters Seven to Sixteen. Finally, Benedict’s contributions to monastic reform are emphasized in Chapter Twenty-nine. The interpolated section concludes with Bene- dict’s attendance at Aachen, this time, however, under Emperor Louis the Pious, not his father Charlemagne. This question cannot be resolved without further thorough study, still to be undertaken. We are unwilling to let the problem of conceivable interpolation rest, however. Even if Bonnerue’s assumption—that a complete section of no less than eleven and a half chapters is a subsequent addition—should remain unsubstantiated, we must nevertheless stress that other scholars have for some time raised similar charges of interpolation against these chapters. The controversial assessment of Chapter Thirty is especially crucial. Allen Cabaniss regarded it as a complete interpolation by a later redac- tor. In this point he apparently concurs with Pierre Tisset’s view.70 Wilhelm Pückert’s position is somewhat more cautious. He was able to recognize Ardo of Aniane’s style in Chapter Thirty, and considered as later interpolations only certain phrases, those that all too blatantly imply Aniane’s dominance over Gellone.71 A decree does exist, however, in which William transfers estates to the cella Gellone and explicitly places his foundation under Benedict’s spiritual and administrative authority, and thereby the authority of the abbey of Aniane. Different versions of this text are extant, preserved in Gellone and Ariane respectively. In the course of their dispute, each house manipulated the charter’s text to its own advantage.72 Yet another version of this charter only recently came into the possession of the

70. Tisset, L’Abbaye de Gellone, 8–10 und 55. 71. Pückert, Aniane und Gellone, 107–110. 72. For a summary see Chastang, ‘Mémoire’, 179–182. See also Lemaître and Le Blévec, Le livre du chapitre, 36–39, who voice strong doubts regarding the authenticity of the donation charter. The Second Benedict 21 Montpellier archives, and was initially considered to be another eleventh- century Aniane forgery. According to the most recent appraisal, however, it is indeed possible that this document is the original charter issued by William on 15 December 804.73 Accepting these findings would necessitate abandoning most of the allegations made against Chapter Thirty of the Life. The reference to Gellone as a cella—a small monastery with only a slight degree of au- tonomy and dependent on a mother house—would no longer appear offensive if the very founder himself made use of the term. Furthermore, this term is used for Gellone in several charters issued by Louis the Pious, in which Gellone is placed under Aniane’s authority. These documents, however, originate from Aniane’s cartulary and must therefore be considered probable forgeries. These questions can only be conclu- sively resolved when the critical edition of Louis the Pious’ charters becomes available.74 The question of whether or not Chapter Thirty of the Life has been subjected to interpolation, and if so to what degree, cannot be settled at this juncture. The testimony of the written sources, however, does seem to speak in favor of the view that Ardo could have written this chapter in its present form in the 820’s. Finally, let us cast a brief glance at the beginning section of the pas- sage identified byB onnerue as a potential interpolation. In 18.3-6 we

73. Archives départementales de l’Hérault, Montpellier, 1 J 1015. For a brief account of how the charter came into the archives’ possession see Mersiowsky, ‘Zur Edition’, 333; re the question of its authenticity see Pierre Chastang, Lire, écrire, transcrire: le travail des rédacteurs de cartulaires en Bas-Languedoc (XIe–XIIIe siècles) (Paris: Edition du CTHS, 2001) 154 with note 558. For a summary of its contents, see Chastang, ‘Mémoire’, 179–182, including an excerpt from the charter’s text. 74. Until such an edition is published, the Regesta Imperii must be consulted: Regesta Imperii I: Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter den Karolingern 751–918, nach Johann Friedrich Böhmer neu bearbeitet von Engelbert Mühlbacher (Innsbruck: Verlag der Wagner’schen Universitätsbuchhandlung, 21908). Individual charters are cited with the abbreviation BM2 followed by the entry number. On the work-in- progress on a critical edition, see Theo Kölzer, Kaiser Ludwig der Fromme (814–840) im Spiegel seiner Urkunden (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2005). The charters refering to Gellone as cella are: BM2 522, 752 und 970. According to a chart in Kölzer’s pre- liminary report, the authenticity of the latter two charters does not appear to be in doubt. 22 Benedict of Aniane find the text of a charter issued by Charlemagne in 792,75 which is extant in another version. The second, longer, version containing ad- ditional formulaic elements immediately follows the text of the Vita in the Aniane cartulary. The charter grants the abbey of Aniane full immunity and the protection of the ruling dynasty. Furthermore, the abbey is granted the right to elect its own abbots. The coupling of these elements is, of course, not common until the charters of Louis the Pious, Charlemagne’s son.76 A confirmation charter of these privileges, issued by Louis, is also preserved.77 Presumably, the abovementioned charter issued by Charlemagne originally granted only immunity, but not royal protection and the free elections of abbots. In all probability, the content of the version of the charter as it appears in the Life is actually a combination of the original charter issued by Charlemagne and the confirmation charter issued by Louis.78 Inevitably this brings to mind the question whether Ardo was responsible for this fusion or whether this was done in the course of a later redaction of the Life. The latter appears the more probable, as the introduction preceding the charter in the text of the Life mentions only immunity (18.2). Thus in the original context the reference pertained to Charlemagne’s charter in its original form. Whether or not this charter appeared verbatim in the Life, or whether Ardo’s original merely made brief reference to the charter’s existence, cannot be resolved here. Not only the middle section of the Life, but also its conclusion has been subject to repeated discussion. Following the text of the Life in the Aniane cartulary we find, first, a letter from the monks of Inden (Cor- nelimünster), in which they give a brief summary of Benedict’s career and a more extensive, detailed description of his final days and death. They conclude with a request that Ardo write Benedict’s biography and send it to them (Chapter Forty-two). Ardo mentions the letter from the monks of Inden in the Praefatio (Preface:b). He explicitly mentions the description of Benedict’s death and the request for a Life, but ignores the monks’ summary of Benedict’s life. It is quite possible that Ardo used

75. Die Urkunden Pippins, Karlmanns und Karls des Großen, ed. Engelbert Mühl- bacher (Hannover: Hahn, 1906) 231–233 (charter no. 173). 76. On the new type of combined privilege, see Kölzer, Kaiser Ludwig der Fromme, 27. 77. BM2 524 dated 24 April 814. 78. See Chastang, Lire, 162–168. The Second Benedict 23 this summary as the foundation for his more extensive narrative. Adding the letter from the monks of Inden to the text of the Life, Ardo picks up on his Praefatio and in so doing bestows upon the hagiographical work its actual conclusion. Two more letters follow the one from Inden, letters from Benedict’s own pen. In the first (Chapter Forty-three), he takes leave of George, his successor as abbot of Aniane; in the second he takes leave of his old companion Nibridius, Archbishop of Narbonne. Whether these letters belong to Benedict’s Life, that appears to come to its natural conclusion with the letter from the monks of Inden, is unclear. It does not automatically follow, however, that these two letters are supplements. It is not impossible that the monks sent these two final documents together with their account of Benedict’s death. Naturally they would have retained copies of the letters to George and Nibridius. Why should they not have added them to the account for Ardo? On the other hand, one of the letters is specifically addressed to the abbot and monks of Aniane, so it must have been available there. Ardo un- doubtedly had access to it, as he reveals elsewhere in the Life that he had access to the charters stored in the monastery’s archives. The letter to Nibridius requests the bishop to bestow upon Aniane his special solicitude. It is conceivable that Nibridius provided the abbey with a copy of this letter at some appropriate opportunity. Be that as it may, in both cases it is far from absurd to assume that these two letters some- how came into Ardo’s possession. And if this was the case, it is conceivable that he himself appended them to his Life. In quality, there is no great difference between the account of the monks of Inden and the two letters by Benedict. In either case, Ardo definitely did not write this material. If Ardo himself added the monks’ account to his Life, why should he not have done the same with the other letters?

Conclusions What conclusion may be drawn from all these confusing, and in part contradictory, considerations? Regardless of the final outcome in the debates over the extent of interpolation and manipulations of the Life, we must, in reading it, keep in mind that the text in the middle section was most likely at some time significantly altered, and that in its present form it does not necessarily represent the intentions of Ardo’s original testimony. 24 Benedict of Aniane We must, at the same time, not ignore the fact that major portions of the Life may still be regarded as being above suspicion, and that it retains its value as an historical source: Benedict’s early career, his close relationship to the Carolingian dynasty—Louis the Pious in particular— as well as his distinguished position in Aquitaine and the empire remain largely untainted by charges of forgery. Unaffected also are the descriptions of his character, his piety, and his political activities, as well as the details regarding his literary pursuits. Nor do the colorful descriptions of daily life in an early medieval monastery lose any of their charm or value.

Ardo of Aniane Our final task is to cast a brief glance atA rdo of Aniane himself (783-843), the author of the Life. In high medieval written sources from Aniane, Ardo is honored with a nickname: Ardo, qui est Smaragdus.79 Because of this ‘title’, he came to be confused with another monastic author, Smaragdus, abbot of Saint-Mihiel. In his study on the abbot of Saint-Mihiel, who was active in the monastic reform movement by means of his Commentary on the Rule of Benedict80 and a treatise for monks on monastic virtues (Diadema monachorum), and was also well known through his theological writings, Fidel Rädle devotes a detailed segment to Ardo of Aniane. The likeness in name caused confusion well into the twentieth century, and in discussions of individual works by Smaragdus, repeated attempts were made to attribute them to the monk of Aniane. Rädle’s studies should have resolved these questions once and for all. Ardo was held in high esteem within the local tradition of Aniane, even after his death. They were proud of him as a master teacher. There is no mention anywhere, however, of his literary pursuits. Three extant epitaphs corroborate this: one (a fragment) is found on a tomb-

79. Fidel Rädle, Studien zu Smaragd von Saint-Mihiel (München: Fink, 1974) 79–96. 80. Smaragdi Abbatis Expositio in Regulam S. Benedicti, edd. Alfredus Spannagel and Pius Engelbert OSB, in Kassius Hallinger osb, general editor, Corpus Consue- tudinum Monasticarum, 8 (Siegburg: Verlag Franz Schmitt, 1974). English translation by David Barry osb, Smaragdus of Saint-Mihiel, Commentary on the Rule of Saint Benedict, Cistercian Studies series, 212 (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 2008). The Second Benedict 25 stone in Aniane; the other two texts are preserved in manuscripts.81 Rädle’s conclusion is clear: none of the works by Smaragdus of Saint- Mihiel can be accredited to Ardo. How did this confusion of identities arise?82 One can only speculate. It appears, however, that the nickname ‘Smaragdus’ is primarily used in the so-called Chronicon Arianense,83 an historiographically unreliable text dating from the eleventh or twelfth century. Within this text Smaragdus appears exclusively in the context of descriptions of events that are definitely fictitious. Since the famous Smaragdus of Saint-Mihiel was actually in contact with Benedict of Aniane and the reformers of monasticism, it is therefore quite conceivable that Aniane attempted to magnify its own significance by adorning itself with this name.T here might be a possible link to the dispute with Gellone in this context. The close bond of the Aniane tradition to Smaragdus would also explain the appearance of verses written by Smaragdus of Saint-Mihiel in the space between the two letters appended to the Life.84 Rädle also analyzes the Life’s linguistic properties,85 disclosing numerous violations of Latin grammar and characterizing Ardo’s Latin as ‘flawed’ and ‘extremely labored’.86 Ardo’s transgressions include the use of original and unusual word-forms, errors in gender, incorrect syntax, and—one of the most conspicuous idiosyncrasies—the frequent use of the accusative absolute. More recent studies, in particular those of Bengt Löfstedt, have contributed further examples which complement Rädle’s observations.87 Thomas Haye partially exonerates Ardo by drawing attention to the fact that the phenomena described were not all that unusual in Ardo’s day and therefore not subject to generalizations as

81. Printed in: MGH Poetae 4 1031 (no. 10 and 11) and MGH Poetae 6 141 (no. 6), also in: Rädle, Studien, 80–82. 82. See Rädle, Studien, 86–96. 83. Printed together with the Chronicon Moissiacense, ed. Pertz, 280–313. The nicknames occur on 301, lines 27 and 30, 310, line 49, and 311 line 31, though the last reference is not to Ardo, but to an abbot of Aniane named Smaragdus. 84. Rädle, Studien, 89 f. 85. Rädle, Studien, 84–86. 86. Rädle, Studien, 84. This view concurs with opinions voiced by Georg Waitz, MGH SS 15,1 199. 87. Bengt Löfstedt, ‘Zu Ardos “Vita s. Benedicti”’, Aevum 59 (1985) 178–180. 26 Benedict of Aniane being violations of grammar.88 Providing numerous examples, Haye demonstrates that Ardo varies his language according to his subject matter: the narrative passages are written in a simple, clear style, whereas the reflective portions tend to be rhetorically more elaborate.89 Ardo’s vocabulary tends to be plain, marked by the repetitious use of specific words and phrases.90 Moreover, a certain propinquity to the style of legal documents of the period is perceptible—an observation that might indirectly underscore Ardo’s credibility and make it all the more plau- sible that he referred to charters when composing the Life.91 When evaluating the linguistic quality of Ardo’s text, we must also take into consideration its late transmission. Minor alterations like word- endings, prefixes, and various sentence structures may just as likely have been the product of a later transcription. When evidence for the quality of Ardo’s style of Latin is taken from the very chapters that are under acute suspicion of being interpolated—as much as one fifth to one quarter of the entire text92—the question becomes especially problematic. For valuable suggestions we wish to thank Professor Dr Mark Mersiowsky and Professor Dr Gerhard Schmitz of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Annette Grabowsky and Clemens Radl Universität Tübingen and Monumenta Germaniae Historica English translation by Cornelia Oefelein

88. Thomas Haye, ‘Solecismorum fetor: Einige philologische Bemerkungen zu Ardo von Aniane’, Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi 52 (1994) 151–166. 89. Haye, ‘Solecismorum fetor’, 163f. 90. For example Ardo’s frequent use of the word pandere, the stereotype use of vice alia when listing Benedict’s deeds and his fondness for compounding adjectives with the prefixes pre- and per-; see Haye, ‘Solecismorum fetor’, 164f. 91. Haye, ‘Solecismorum fetor’, 165f. 92.Georg Waitz, MGH SS 1 199, remarked on the interdependency between the datings of the transcription and the cartulary; see also the brief remarks by L.-H. Lucassen, ‘À propos d’un texte de la vie de s. Benoît d’Aniane par Ardon’, Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi 4 (1928) 78 f.